The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA), the union and
industry advocate for Australia's journalists, has described the
National Security Legislation Amendment Bill No 1 which been passed by
the parliament an outrageous attack on press freedom in Australia.

MEAA federal secretary Christopher Warren said: "This Bill has been
rushed through in undue haste without proper discussion or debate of the
implications it has in denying long-held freedoms in Australia. In a
healthy functioning democracy this assault on the public's right to know
and the penalties applied to the media for scrutinising power must be
condemned. The Bill muzzles the media from doing its job.

Warren said: "The Bill criminalises legitimate journalist reporting
of matters in the public interest. It overturns the public's right to
know. It persecutes and prosecutes whistleblowers and journalists who
are dealing with whistleblowers. It imposes ludicrous penalties of up to
10 years jail on journalists. It imposes outrageous surveillance on
journalists and the computer networks of their media employers. It
treats every Australian as a threat and denies their rights of access to
information and freedom of expression."

MEAA believes the government has rushed the legislation, ignoring the warnings of media organisations and MEAA.

"The parliament has now passed legislation that hands extraordinary
powers to the government and its spy agencies while conveniently
preventing legitimate scrutiny of those powers. At a time when the
parliament should be defending and promoting freedoms in our society it
has instead chosen to strip them away," Warren said.

MEAA has repeatedly raised its concerns over section 35P of the Bill
which imposes a jail term of up to 10 years on journalists for
"unauthorised disclosure of information" - criminalising the work of
journalists if they receive information about a special intelligence
operation, particularly from whistleblowers or "trusted insiders" as the
Bill notes in its Explanatory Memorandum. The penalty in the Bill is a
jail term of between five and 10 years.

The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the offences outlined
in section 35P would apply to "disclosures by any person" and "persons
who are recipients of unauthorised disclosure of information, should
they engage in any subsequent disclosure". This would capture legitimate
reporting by journalists and media organisations of activities in the
public interest. For example, this legislation would have made illegal
the legitimate reporting of Edward Snowden's revelation about the
phone‐tapping of the wife of Indonesian President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono.

Late amendments to the Bill would also apply a "recklessness" test
to prosecuting media organisations for publishing or broadcasting
information. This is countered by a requirement on the Commonwealth
Director of Public Prosecutions "to consider the public interest in the
commencement or continuation of a prosecution" but the definition of the
public interest from the DPP's perspective may differ greatly from that
of journalists, the media and, indeed, the public.

Warren said: "It is clear that rather than seeing Edward Snowden as a
legitimate whistleblower who exposed massive illegal misuse of
metadata, this legislation ensures that anyone seeking to also expose
wrongdoing by Australia's spy agencies will be muzzled, unable to get
their story out to the wider community despite the obvious public
interest, and will be punished with a jail term of up to 10 years."

The Bill can also deem journalists and their employers to be a
"third party" if they interview persons of interest to the Australia
Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). Consider the example of
Australian barrister Bernard Collaery and his allegations that ASIO
agents raided his Canberra office and seized electronic and paper files
relating to the alleged bugging of the Timor Leste's government's
Cabinet offices during negotiations for a treaty relating to the Timor
Gap. Journalists who interview persons of interest to ASIO like Collaery
can be subjected to powers of surveillance, investigation and
punishment which may undermine a journalist's ethical obligations to
never disclose the identity of a confidential source. It also sits at
odds with shield laws that protect journalists from having to disclose
the identity of confidential sources.

The Bill's new definition of "computer" (to include a computer
system or network) has grave implications for people and organisations
designated "third parties". As a third party, the journalist's computer
and their media organisation's computer network could be monitored, have
information taken, and be "disrupted". The Bill's overview regarding
intelligence collection powers states the Bill enables ASIO to: "obtain
intelligence from a number of computers (including a computer network)
under a single computer access warrant, including computers at a
specified location or those which are associated with a specified
person" and the Bill's amendments also alter "the current limitation on
disruption of a target computer". Under the Bill's proposed amendments
"disruption" can include the addition, copying, altering or deletion of
data if ASIO deems it necessary. This can happen to a third party's
computer and/or communications in transit. This again threatens the
relationship journalists have with their confidential sources and the
preparation of news stories.

MEAA believes the parliament needs to rethink the government's
rushed counter-terrorism measures and allow them to be fully and
properly debated with a careful consultation process to ensure that, in
the rush to provide government with new powers, cherished and
long-defended liberties are not undermined. "At the very least there
must be a sunset clause on these extraordinary powers; an improved and
rigorous process of independent oversight and review; an understanding
that denying the public the right to know what governments do in our
name is an appalling assault on democracy; and protections in place to
ensure journalists and the media are not treated as criminals for doing
their job," he said.

In a late amendment, journalists now face 10-years' jail if they
identify an ASIO officer. MEAA notes that ASIO has been able to
inoculate itself from scrutiny so successfully that any wrongdoing by an
ASIO officer could result in two years' jail but if a journalist
reported the officer's abuse of power, the journalist faces five times
that penalty.

"The outcome of this legislation for journalists is two-fold: a
muzzle has been applied to the media that will have a chilling effect on
legitimate journalism while at the same time journalists will be
compelled to resort to the tools and techniques of espionage to protect
their news sources and stories from being interfered with by the
government and its agencies," Warren said. "Those two outcomes are not
healthy in any democracy. But they are even more galling when the
government responsible claims to be implementing these in order to
protect our freedoms and our way of life," he said.

"As Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a former journalist, has said in
relation to the arrest, detention and jailing of Australian journalist
Peter Greste in Cairo: 'Peter Greste would have been reporting the
Muslim Brotherhood, not supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. Because
that's what Australian journalists do.' That distinction about the work
that journalists do needs to be considered by the Australian Parliament
and should have been recognised in this Bill," Warren said.

MEAA calls on its members, their media industry colleagues and media
organisations to campaign to protect press freedom in Australia.

Subscribe

How to read this blog

As many articles can be quite lengthy, the blog will display 5 posts per page. To view the rest of the day's articles click on "Older Posts" located below the last article. There will be 10-12 posts each day of publication. All post times are Sydney time.

Publication

i On Global Trends, published Tue to Sat inclusive (Sydney time) - although work and social commitments may result in slight variations

News and Opinions

The views expressed by authors or media organisations other than Mike Hitchen, do not necessarily reflect the views of Mike Hitchen Online. This blog aims to present a wide spectrum of opinion and analysis. The source of every article is prominently displayed and should be considered when reading.

Copyright Mike Hitchen Online, Lane Cove, NSW 2066, Australia. ABN: 25 713 178 439 All rights reserved.Content may not be republished without the written consent of the publisher or an authorized representative